cladking

I guess it's water under the bridge then. It appears many of the individuals on this site accept expert opinion and assumptions on par with experimental results. If any of these opinions are challenged it is taken as a challenge to experiment and hence to science. If experimental interpretation is challenged it is taken as a challenge to science itself. If models are attacked or it's pointed out that models are not experiment it is taken as a challenge to science. It's only natural for the status quo to be maintained but people should remember if the status quo always prevailed we'd still living in caves. Just because someone doesn't support the current paradigm it doesn't mean he doesn't understand the current paradigm.

I'm assuming the prohibition against talking about the site is being waived for this thread. I don't believe that moderation in this section is the problem per se. Much of the problem is the culture that has been generated that accepts all science as equally valid and all who doubt or reject the orthodox assumptions as lumbering fools. There's a "piling on" everytime a new subject comes up and negs fly no matter how logical and well evidenced a point happens to be. This isn't a failing of science or scientists but of this particular forum section. When someone presents me with a speculation or new hypothesis I suspend disbelief until I've heard him out. Then I seek the illogic or lack of support for key points. I think most speculators here will feel driven off. Lest someone think I don't like this forum, I really do. It has numerous good points as well including the many people who do understand the state of the art in many categories of modern science. While the tactics for winning arguments are beyond the pale the expertise is real and cogent. In 10th grade I developed a ~64 step proof that any number divided by zero was infinity. It was a thing of beauty. No one had the least interest in it. At best they'd glance at the first and last steps and hand it back. I was about ready to send it off when I discovered the tiniest little flaw where I had assumed the conclusion. Of course it mushroomed and led inexhoribly to the conclusion. Nothing has changed in the least. They are simply hoping some expert will tell them I'm right or I'll discover my error so they don't need to. I'm confident this applies to many people in this section. If their theories make better predictions it will simply be discounted.

Each individual organism is charged with striving for perfection. What's perfect for one individual is wrong for another. This ideal changes with time so the goal is always a moving target.

No one really knows. I believe nature is simply logical and mathematics is the quantification of logic. It's only natural that math can model nature or nature appears to model math. The sole purpose of any science is to make predictions. The degree to which understanding is achieved is the degree to which accurate prediction can be made. Models are merely a sort of mnemonic to remember experimental results. Models are often mistaken for reality and understanding of models mistaken for understanding of nature.

There's probably nothing about human cognition that can't be simulated by a computer if sufficient effort is put into trying. The last and most difficult aspect of human mental ability to be achieved would be intuition because this requires experience and learning to understand where logical steps can be avoided. However there's no such thing as "human intelligence" so it follows there is no such thing as "artificial intelligence". AI is a dead end that will be supplanted by machine intelligence. The most difficult thing for intelligent machines will be understanding humans and human perspectives.

It would seem the alien might be representative of a species that didn't waste its time much. Who's to say what things set their species and their science apart from our own? If he said everything we believe is wrong then it might be trying to teach us something. Even as a non-alien I can agree with the sentiment if he means all "belief" is wrong even when it's based on known science. Science doesn't show reality but the effects of reality. We are trying to come to know reality through its effects on experiment. We might be coming to understand the forces and processes by which nature operates but that doesn't mean our "belief" in scientific theory or its applicability to the real world is "true" or correct. ...Or one man's waste of time can be another's search for reality. One species' "truth" can be another's detour. All "science" might not even be the same but every tool (specific science) determines the type and amount of knowledge that can be gained. It's not the knowledge gained that can be at issue so much as the effectiveness and applicability to the real world. Real knowledge is often misapplied even without errors of logic. The misapplication is usually the result of unknown or ignored variables. Without talking to the alien, asking for definitions and evidence, it will be impossible to understand his meaning.

This specific miscommunication was principally my fault. I should have made it clear that one party can be chiefly responsible. However, I've used the word "theory" to mean human scientific knowledge so many times that I believed this would be apparent to readers. More importantly, I believe this is the only meaning that fit logically in the sentence so in my opinion is the apparent meaning. I'm involved on one side or another of a great deal of miscommunication so I never assume it's the other guy's fault. But then I've also observed two individuals having a conversation about two different subjects and neither noticing it. I know for a fact that there's a great deal of miscommunication going on and I believe I'm more sensitive to it than most. I may well cause more than most, as well. If I ever meet an alien I almost expect him to tell me everything I believe is wrong. He'd have no way of knowing I don't believe much of anything. I might even find his comment humorous even if it wasn't a joke.

My theory is that everyone should try to grasp theory whether the subject is factual or theoretical. Miscommunication is pervasive everywhere and is never the fault of one party. It takes two to miscommunicate. Indeed, if an alien tells you that scientific theory is all wrong then there's a fair chance he isn't expressing himself well or you misundersrtand him. Perhaps he's stating the case well enough and you aren't following the conversation. Of course, it's usually going to be a combination of both when aliens say science is all wrong. Or it's going to be an incomprehensible joke or it will be a different perspective. One thing it's not is literally true from a scientific perspective. Facts are facts whether you grew up on earth or Alpha Centari.

This would hardly be unusual. To me "theory" is akin to "human knowledge" or "state of the art". Of course, neither of these terms presupposes accuracy or correctness in my mind especially as the subject (specific art) drifts off toward the soft sciences. State of the art knowledge is far more likely to be wrong where premises are more poorly defined and more assumptions exist in foundational beliefs. But in the hard sciences, especially those which can be manipulated mathematically, state of the art (theory) is the sum total of all experiment and (proper) observation. This state of the art is unassailable in its entirety even though every single piece is always open to being rewritten. It's hardly impossible it's all wrong and reality isn't reflected in experiment or even that all experiment is misinterpreted but this might be no more likely than stepping into a vacuum on your evening stroll. Frankly, I probably have less confidence in any given fact than almost anyone but I have no doubt at all about the scientific method and its applicability to understanding nature. It's also ironic that it's only the second best science but I'll save this to when it's more appropriate.

I nearly didn't respond at all because we are so close to a semantical argument. But "theory" by definition requires experiment agree with it. It seems you're much closer to agreeing with the alien than I am. If the alien presented you with empirical evidence that scientific theory is wrong you'd change your mind whereas I'd simply assume he was using his "magic" to fool me. It would be impossible for me to accept the idea science is wrong without completely reorganizing everything I know. It would require a great deal of proof and then some time before I had an opinion about anything at all.

If "theory" doesn't agree with experiment then it's no longer theory. I would be highly disinclined to put any constraints whatsoever on nature; not so much because I consider it blasphemous which I do, but because so little of nature/ reality is known that it's presumptuous to believe it must be right or that it always behaves the same way. I think that for all practical purposes we must consider established theory to explain observation and we must always be vigilant to see where observation differs from that reality. By the same token I believe we should assume a perspective from outside of our knowledge and understanding of theory to better attend to these anomalies. I believe this perspective, metaphysics, and observation should be taught from a very young age to all students who are predisposed to science and who are naturally skeptical. To each his own.

Perhaps I should have said "theory" can't be wrong. Of course this statement wouldn't have been strictly true either because theory can be incomplete, true only in limited applications, or misinterpreted. It simply seemed easier to say science can't be wrong and leave each reader to fend for himself. You sound like me now. Next you'll be saying language is confused and math can't be properly applied to reality.

He's probably telling a joke and you should laugh politely if you don't get it. Science can't be wrong because experiment reflects reality. Our understanding of experiment and how we extrapolate its results can be wrong, and I believe it is, but experiment itself and the observation that leads to it is "right".

Let me answer in a few hundred years.

We all see what we believe. We can only see confirmation of our beliefs most of the time. Progress individually and collectively comes from seeing the anomalies but these tend to be invisible. "Suppression" isn't so much a collective event in science due to its nature. "Science" isn't founded on belief so scientists are more likely to see truth as it comes into the light. Science has tools like math for identifying truth which is merely logical statements about reality. But scientists are still human beings and still think like other human beings today. "Suppression" is the blindness imposed on al of us by our own beliefs and is mostly an individual thing in science. Whether you believe in one God or that two gods plus two gods equal four gods or even that two plus two equals four you are still a product of your beliefs and still see the world in terms of those beliefs. It is exceedingly difficult to see any sort of reality directly or to see anything that you don't already know. This is what observation is about; seeing what's there without preconceptions and without perspective.

You're seeing this in terms of "science". You're seeing the methodology required to build on existing science/ theory. And you're understanding it all in terms of models and existing paradigms. Many times new ideas simply spring from new facts or new perspectives rather than scientific methodology. Saying they aren't "science" isn't necessarily accurate. Yes, often they aren't subjected to the rigors of experiment, mathematical proof, or normal methodology but this hardly means such ideas aren't "scientific" in nature or that they are wrong. If I hypothesize that "bigfoots" are descended from alpine Neanderthals then the problem is lack of a specimen to study moreso than that there might exist a more reasonable explanation of how bigfoot arose. That the evidence they exist at all is poor at best is irrelevant to their na- ture or their ability to survive. Sometimes reason puts the onus of proof on the contention and sometimes on existing models or dogma. Progress always arises as ideas of individuals and often the same idea pops up in many locals. If a yeti appeared then many people might recognize its ancestry. Such is the nature of progress. Until something is proven to be consistent with theory derived from experiment it is simply a mod- el for understanding. Much of what we believe has little to do with experiment and everything to do with beliefs. Even experiment can be misinterpreted. We "know" far less than people think we do. Science isn't successful because it generates knowledge. If we depended on knowledge We couldn't have built the pyramids or put a man on the moon because we don't know what gravity is. Science is successful because reality asserts itself through (in) experiments and we model this reality to gain ever more knowledge which results in ever more experiments. It is the ability to perform the "magic trick" of manifesting experiment outside the lab as tech- nology that is the basis of science's success. We don't need to know why something works to build it into a machine.

All evidence is subject to interpretation. We order evidence to create models and then see the world in terms of these models. The models are never the reality itself and the evidence and math are never clean fits to support the models which means no new evidence will perfectly support the model either. The model will simply evolve to better support these new facts. Nobody is really trying to impede progress or prevent observation of the reality, we are all simply a "servant" of what we already think we know. Our "understanding" (modelling) has given us tremendous creature comfort and has seemed to set the universe at our feet so we have no desire to give up hard won progress in any field or belief system. We each would like to build on the system and many make a career of it so we each have a strong tendency to protect the vehicle we're trying to improve. In the modern world one's position in the establishment often hinges on his ability to protect this status quo. Being first to support new ideas is highly risky to your place within the field. So long as there is real "progress" in the sciences "reality" will always find more ways to assert itself until the establishment is forced to accept it. The problem in so many discussions both virtual and otherwise is that the participants are talking past one another. Naysayers latch onto irrelevancies and though they are proof positive the assertion is wrong. We all seem to be reading from different pages of the same book. Rather than examing premises and seeking agreement we are all trying to present our beliefs as reality itself. Add in confusion, misapprehension, and miscommunication and it's a wonder there is any progress at all. It's a wonder people can't see the wonder of it.

The problem is that people have a knee jerk reaction to support the status quo. Whether you believe in ghosts, gods, or science your beliefs are always being reinforced by observation and new learning. You simply will lose track of the reasons and methods for obtaining knowledge. The more fundamental the premises being attacked the greater the amplitude of the jerk. It's not as difficult having your most cherished beliefs shaken as it is having your fundamental definitions, axioms, and premises laid bare.

I think it's a bad thing Americans are not doing science. Few (real) Americans appreciate this danger, eh?

I said the pyramid was built right on top of the water tight paving stones because this is essentially what Petrie reported. The paving stones were put dowm first on sockets cut especially to recieve the fine Turah Limestone. Other places this was done were water tight and this whole pyramid base was surrounded by a 15' wall obviously to impound water. I've broght the thread back for two reasons. Chiefly because pictures of the pyramid founded on the water collection device are beginning to appear on the internet finally; But also because it appears Egyptology is finally planbning to study this and it will show the pyramids were built with water; http://www.aeraweb.org/articles/the-2015-great-pyramid-survey/ If they check the altitude of each of these points they will see that the water catchment device the ancients called the "Ssm.t" (integrated apron) follows the curve of the earth because water follows the curve of the earth. I don't comprehend why people resist the obvious. It's great to see Egyptology looking into this.

Thank you. If you consider each of these commands to constitute a single "word" then what is an approximate total number of words needed to program? Of course it's much more than "7".

Hi. I used to do a little programming back in the very old days. I know languages are far different now. I'm curious to know how many words (approximately) are required for a computer to follow. Can you list a few of these words like "go to"? I'm trying to get a feel for the number of words needed for basic one way "communication" and the most extensive computer vocabulary should be reflective of this, I believe. Thanks in advance.

Here's a fairly little thing. I've finally discovered the scientific term for the counterweight that lifted the stones though I've suspected it for some time now. Utterance 300. 445a. To say: O Hrti of Nsȝ.t, ferryman of the ’Iḳh.t-boat, made by Khnum, 445b. bring this (boat) to N. N. is Seker of R-Śtȝ.w. 445c. N. is on the way to the place of Seker, chief of Pdw-š. 445d. It is our brother who is bringing this (boat) for these bridge-girderers (?) of the desert. I hadn't been confident of the meaning of "Hrti of Nsȝ.t" and since meaning is contingent on context in the ancient language I couldn't be sure that the "’Iḳh.t-boat" was actually the boat in which the ballast (seker) sat (the counterweight). "R-Śtȝ.w" is the ancient name of the place the great pyramids were built and it meant "Mouth of Caves". "Pdw-š" is the proper noun for "Spread Lake" which no doubt got its name because it spread from the source of water. There are a couple of explanations of this in the PT. The pyramid expressed in its vulgar form was the bridge to the sky for the dead king. This makes the "boat" needed at Giza for the ballast (seker) to be needed for the ballast to build the pyramid. But this understanding is contingent on "Hrti of Nsȝ.t" not rearranging the context and meaning. Well, it turns out through solving the context Hrti is merely the name of the individual from Ns3.t who was in charge of bringing in supplies or boats. Jobs were awarded on the basis of the hometown of the city whose inventor called home. All of these terms are solved by context as the meaning emerges. Every word had only a single meaning and every object had three words to describe it; a scientific term, a colloquial term, and a vulgar term. The meaning of the utterance depends on the selection of terms. . So: "’Iḳh.t-boat" was the scientific term for the counterweight that actually lifted stones one step at a time to build the pyramid. "Henu boat" or "3nw-boat" was the colloquial term and; The (thighs of the) "Bull of Heaven" would be the vulgar term. Of course they also used descriptive terms in context and from other perspectives called it things like, "the boats of maat (balance)" and the "boats tied togerther". It was isis (goddess of the counterweight) who siezed the "forward cable of the boats tied together" as her harmonious sister (nephthys) "held the stern cable". The language and means to build the pyramid are both quite simple but are intimately connected because the words were the "the words of the gods", and it was the "gods" who built the pyramid which not only built itself but whose scientific name was "mr" which meant "instrument of ascension". Everything just fits together.

I don't believe there's a good reason to believe anything at all other than that reality exists and it is exactly the same for all observers. Of course we can't necessarily trust our senses and our perception of reality is usually dependent on perspective. We must try to learn to factor perspective out of observation just as we factor angle (parallax) out of reading analog dials. Beliefs are destructive because we see what we expect and believe. We become our beliefs. It is much better to just estimate the odds of something being true and always avoid being more than 99.9% confident or you'll typically be wrong.

Interesting ideas. Why couldn't gravity be a product of chaotic processes?